Robert G Goodby wrote:

>Really, I think in many cases the "instincts" of the militia people are
>sound, as is much of their analysis--it's the conclusions they draw from
>these that are often faulty and morally bankrupt. They have, however,
>arose in a political context in which radical/left influence in minimal,
>as a result of the obvious domination of the media, academia, etc. by
>elite interests and the persistent inability of the "left" to effectively
>organize.

If the left suffers from a "persistent inability" to effectively organise,
its pointless to blame their lack of influence on the media, or academia.
You can't really expect the ruling class to take pity and help us out.

>Folks who find the militias attractive are responding ultimately
>to the realization of their own lack of power; this recognition could be
>the basis for all sorts of responses, ranging from fascism & racism to
>non-violent anarchist revolution. Unfortunately, given the prominence of
>xenophobic, racist, and social Darwinist sentiments in well-organized and
>well-funded "conservative" circles, this is the direction most militias
>gravitate towards.

Are there parallels between militias in the US and youth gangs in cities
like Los Angeles? I ask this because I have recently read a quite
interesting analysis of the 1992 Los Angeles "rebellion" (putting it firmly
in the category of class war) from the Aufheben web site which says similar
things about them. However that analysis concludes that rascism is less a
factor there than might be expected, which is a hopeful sign.

Apologies if this is all old hat to you yanks of course, but I don't really
know enough to judge - interested in your opinion.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tasmania